- In its third-party intervention submitted to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding the Osman Kavala case, the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA) stated that ECHR rulings in Turkey are “formally acknowledged but not effectively implemented.”
- The opinion emphasized that the Kavala case has moved beyond being an individual violation and now points to a structural problem that undermines the Convention system.
The Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA) underlined that the non-implementation of ECHR rulings regarding the detention of businessman and human rights defender Osman Kavala is not an isolated case, arguing that this practice has become systematic in political trials in Turkey. In its third-party opinion submitted to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), MLSA described the Kavala case as “one of the clearest examples of the conscious and systematic neutralization of ECHR rulings.”
“All proceedings based on the same facts are legally invalid”
In its opinion, MLSA drew attention to the ECHR’s ruling of December 10, 2019 in the Kavala v. Turkey case. In this judgment, the Court explicitly found that Kavala’s detention constituted violations of Articles 5 and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights. According to MLSA, this ruling not only created an obligation to release Kavala. The association expressed the situation with the following statement:
“This judgment revealed not only the obligation to release the applicant, but also the legal invalidity of all criminal proceedings based on the same facts.”
Nonetheless, it was emphasized that judicial proceedings against Kavala have continued under different criminal charges, and that despite the absence of new and concrete evidence, the detention and conviction processes have been prolonged.
“Turkey did not comply with the judgment in good faith”
MLSA also recalled the Grand Chamber’s infringement procedure ruling dated July 11, 2022. In this decision, the Court concluded that Turkey did not comply in good faith with the 2019 judgment and had violated Article 46 of the Convention.
Despite this, MLSA pointed out that the deprivation of Kavala’s liberty has continued, stating that this is not a coincidence: “The detention and final conviction have been continued with the aim of rendering previous ECHR rulings ineffective.”
The association stressed that this approach has become a systematic judicial practice in political cases.
“ECHR judgments are not effectively implemented”
According to MLSA, the Kavala case is one of the clearest examples of a new era in Turkey in which ECHR judgments are formally acknowledged but not effectively implemented. In its opinion, the association stated that domestic courts either do not refer to ECHR judgments at all or render them ineffective. This situation was expressed in the MLSA opinion as follows:
“The Kavala case is one of the clearest examples of a new era in which ECHR judgments are formally acknowledged but not effectively implemented: domestic courts have either not mentioned ECHR judgments at all or rendered them ineffective by claiming that the judgments pertain only to a ‘previous stage’.”
The association reminded the Court that, according to ECHR case law, continuing proceedings based on the same facts after a violation judgment in itself constitutes a new violation.
“Arbitrariness and hidden purpose continue”
MLSA stated that the continued deprivation of Kavala’s liberty demonstrates ongoing arbitrariness under Article 5 and a hidden purpose under Article 18 of the Convention. The opinion described the objective of the proceedings with the following words:
“The purpose of the detention and conviction is not to punish the applicant, but rather to intimidate civil society, deter human rights defenders, and shrink the space for public debate.”
Emphasis on fair trial and judicial independence
MLSA stated that during Kavala’s prosecution, ECHR case law was deliberately ignored, the obligation to provide reasoned judgments was effectively abolished, and the presumption of innocence was violated through public statements by senior government officials.
The association stated that it has encountered similar problems in many cases it has monitored and emphasized that judicial independence has been de facto suspended in political cases.
“The issue is not limited to the Kavala case”
In its application to the Court, MLSA argued that the case should not be considered solely in terms of Osman Kavala’s individual situation. The opinion included the following statement:
“It is of vital importance to address the consequences of the conscious and systematic neutralization of ECHR judgments for the Convention system.”
The association also emphasized that the judgment to be issued in the Kavala case would set a precedent not only for this particular case but also in terms of the binding nature of ECHR rulings and the credibility of the European human rights protection system. MLSA reiterated its request to participate as a third party in any upcoming hearing, should the Court find it appropriate, and to present oral submissions.
